Table 4

Reporting quality of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) economic evaluations and comparable results of similar reviews in conventional medicine

Items from the BMJ Checklist [30] (Indented items apply only to a subset of studies)Review of CAM Studies N (%)Reviews of Conventional Medicine Studies N (%)
Study design
(1) The research question is stated39 (74)43 (16)*
(2) The economic importance of the research question is stated39 (51)
(3) The perspective of the analysis is stated39 (33)228 (52)†
(4) The rationale for choosing the alternatives is stated39 (69)
(5) The alternatives being compared are clearly described39 (74)228 (83)†
(6) The form of economic evaluation used is stated39 (49)
(7) The choice of form of economic evaluation is justified39 (3)43 (7)*
Data collection
(8) The source(s) of effectiveness estimates are stated38 (100)
 (9) Details of the effectiveness study are given36 (94)
or (10) Details of the review or meta-analysis are given2 (50)
(11) Primary outcome measures are clearly stated39 (95)
 (12) Methods to value health states are stated4 (100)228 (75)†
43 (79)‡
 (13) Details of the subjects from which values were obtained are given4 (25)228 (76)†
43 (46)‡
 (14) Productivity changes are reported separately8 (88)
 (15) The relevance of productivity changes is discussed8 (25)
(16) Quantities of resources are reported separately from unit costs39 (67)43 (19)‡
(17) Methods for the estimation of quantities and unit costs are described39 (67)
(18) Currency and year are recorded39 (41)228 (68)†
(19) Details of adjustments for inflation or currency conversion are given39 (21)43 (21)*
 (20) Details of any model used are given3 (100)
 (21) The choice of the model and its key parameters are justified3 (100)
Analysis and interpretation of results
(22) Time horizon of costs and benefits is stated39 (100)
 (23) The discount rate is stated4 (50)228 (65)†
 (24) The choice of discount rate is justified4 (25)43 (16)*
34 (21)‡
 (25) An explanation is given if costs and benefits not discounted4 (50)8 (12)‡
 (26) Details of statistical tests and confidence intervals are given for stochastic data38 (87)
 (27) The approach to sensitivity analysis is given5 (100)43 (2)*
  (28) The choice of variables for sensitivity analysis is justified5 (40)39 (79)‡
 (29) The ranges over which variables are varied are stated5 (100)228 (57)†
38 (66)‡
(30) Relevant alternatives are compared39 (36)228 (57)†
 (31) Incremental analysis is reported13 (54)228 (46)†
(32) Major outcomes are presented disaggregated and aggregated39 (85)
(33) The answer to the study question is given39 (69)
(34) Conclusions follow from the data reported39 (100)
(35) Conclusions are accompanied by the appropriate caveats39 (67)228 (84)†

* Comparable estimates available from Jefferson et al, 1998 [83].

† Comparable estimates available from Neumann, 2004 [6], a systematic review of cost-utility analyses.

‡ Comparable estimates available from Gerard et al, 2000 [84], a systematic review of cost-utility analyses.

External link. Please review our privacy policy.